A four-year commission studying wrongful convictions in Pennsylvania says more DNA testing, recorded interrogations and changes in the way police interview witnesses could help prevent innocent people from being jailed.

But 14 of the 51 members of the joint state advisory committee defected from the group, and dueling reports were presented to the state Senate Judiciary Committee at a public hearing Tuesday.

The 14 who left the initial group are members of law enforcement, district attorneys or victim’s rights advocates. They collectively complained that the committee process was flawed and biased and excluded their contributions.

However, there is some middle ground.

Both groups agree that a creation of a forensic advisory board and a change in the state’s wiretap rules could help prosecutors avoid bad convictions.

Eleven people have been freed from prison as a result of DNA testing in Pennsylvania since the 1980s.

But the two committees disagree on the definition of “innocence.”

The members who defected believe a distinction should be made between people who are exonerated based on technicalities — police mistakes or court procedures — and people who did not commit the crime.

Many of the recommendations from the initial committee focus on creating more safeguards — basically new rules — for investigating cases.

The biggest difference between the two reports — and the biggest philosophical divide between the members — was over whether substantive changes are necessary to Pennsylvania’s judicial system.

“We don’t think that police practices should be legislated,” said Crawford County District Attorney Francis Schultz, president of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. “There’s always room for improvement in the system, but I don’t think this is the way to do it.”

The committee, which began meeting in 2007, is sponsored by Sen. Stewart J. Greenleaf, R-Montgomery County. The chairman is John T. Rago, a Duquesne University law professor who first proposed the idea of a review to Greenleaf four years ago.

Rago and Montgomery County Judge William R. Carpenter testified before the committee Tuesday. But there weren’t many questions from the senators present. Everyone agreed it would be better to digest the contents of each report — the initial report is 313 pages; the counter report is 82 pages — and hold a second hearing.

“We need to talk to the law enforcement community more and have this presented to the Legislature,” Greenleaf said. “This is just the beginning of the process that we’re involved in.”

The study, Greenleaf said, was probably the largest ever undertaken by the joint state government commission.

Four inmates freed — Patty Carbone, Steven Crawford, Barry Laughman and David Gladden — were exonerated following investigations by late Patriot-News reporter Pete Shellem. He investigated their cases and found problems with confessions, forensic testing and witness accounts.

Both groups suggested changing Pennsylvania’s wiretap law — making it a one-party, instead of twp-party consent state — and considering electronic recording of interrogations.

However, they disagree that changes should be made in police procedures, specifically about witness identifications and jury instructions. The group that broke away believes the final report will make convictions harder and make it easier for the guilty to avoid punishment.

A main concern among those in law enforcement was that procedural changes could lead to acquittals based on technicalities.

Pennsylvania Victim Advocate Carol Lavery thinks that would have a chilling effect on victims.

“When one creates new processes that can potentially increase that sense of being discouraged ... you’ll have more victims who will walk away,” she said.

Rago and Carpenter testified that the intent is not to make a prosecutor’s job harder. Carpenter was a prosecutor in Montgomery County and is now a well-respected judge, Greenleaf said.

Rago said none of the recommendations was as outlandish and harmful to police practices as the district attorneys alleged. Many were adopted from best practices in other states, he said.

Nothing we’re doing here is remarkable in the way that we’re turning new soil,” he said.

But the defected members say they felt the outcome was predetermined and strongly influenced by Rago’s personal opinions.

Lavery said she had been impressed with how much she learned in the lively discussions during the first year of meetings and was disappointed when the first draft came out in 2008 and included only one point of view.

“I don’t know whose viewpoint it is,” she said. “But it certainly doesn’t reflect my understanding of what was going on at these meetings.”

There were no votes, no consensus, and it was unclear to some members who actually drafted the language, said Schultz and Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed.

“Look, Rago and Carpenter are good people and I think we do share a goal, but they just ran a really flawed process, and it’s our job to stand up and point that out,” Freed said.

Related Stories

Featured Story

Get 'Today's Front Page' in your inbox

This newsletter is sent every morning at 6 a.m. and includes the morning's top stories, a full list of obituaries, links to comics and puzzles and the most recent news, sports and entertainment headlines.

optionalCheck here if you do not want to receive additional email offers and information.See our privacy policy

Thank you for signing up for 'Today's Front Page'

To view and subscribe to any of our other newsletters, please click here.